If you're just coming here for the first time, uh... you're late. The site is no longer updated daily (see HERE for the story). But it's still kicking a few times a month, and it's better late than never! Most reviews nowadays are labeled "FTP:" and you should read THIS PRIMER to understand why. Also, while they're marked nowadays, many of the site's older reviews (i.e. 2010 or older) do contain unannounced spoilers, so tread carefully! Thanks for coming by and be sure to leave comments, play nice, and as always, watch Cathy's Curse.
PLEASE, GO ON...
Final Destination: Bloodlines (2025)
APRIL 29, 2025
GENRE: SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (ADVANCED SCREENING)
When a franchise takes a considerable amount of time off, the results are often lacking; the initial excitement for a new entry tends to quickly fade as the runtime proceeds. Friday the 13th was at its best when they were just cranking them out, and it took THREE attempts at reviving Saw for them to come up with something that excited the fans as much as the once-annual entries managed. But no one told the makers of Final Destination: Bloodlines, which comes a whopping 14 years after the 5th film and is every bit as good as that one - possibly even better.
The subtitle isn’t just the usual “Let’s avoid numbers so we can get newcomers” gimmick, I’m happy to report (spoilers for the basic plot ahead!*). As opposed to the standard “someone has a premonition, saves a half dozen or so people, and then they proceed to die anyway” setup, this time around we open in the 1960s, with the opening of a skyview restaurant (between this and Drop, these things are having a cinematic moment!). The usual thing happens: we focus on a single person (Iris, played by Brec Bassinger) who watches as everyone around her begins to die in spectacular ways after a disaster, only for her to wake up after being killed herself, seeing it’s all a vision. But it’s not the girl in the sequence that wakes up! Turns out it’s her granddaughter, Stefani (Kaitlyn Santa Juana), who has been repeatedly plagued by this dream for the past couple months, wreaking havoc on her peace of mind. So Stefani grills her family about her (long-estranged) grandma and finds out what happened at the restaurant: Irish actually saved EVERYONE all those years ago, and then spent a life being so careful that she actually managed to have children, and those children eventually grew up and had their own children… Being a Final Destination movie, you should be able to figure out what happens now: Death is after them all, because they never should have been born in the first place! Iris has spent decades avoiding his tricks and spawned two children, each with multiple children of their own, giving the movie its usual assortment of victims but with the added wrinkle of none of them escaping death the first time around. Stefani's attempts to tell them what's going to happen has no benefit of the doubt, because they didn't witness firsthand her ability to see the future as the main characters in the five previous films managed to have. This is a great concept for two reasons. One is despite the subtitle’s attempts to make us forget, this is “Final Destination 6” after all, and the formula definitely got a bit repetitive (this is one franchise I would never want to marathon), especially without any returning characters (except Bludworth, more on him soon) to latch ourselves onto. The other is that it means every character only dies once, avoiding the occasional issue where someone’s premonition death was more interesting/fun than their actual one later.
We also get a fun twist to the standard “order”, in that they are dying in the order they were born, complete with a “wait, we had it wrong!” twist. It’s just enough of a tweak to the formula to give the film a freshness that the last couple entries lacked. I mean, I really liked FD5 a lot, but it was the ending doing a lot of that heavy lifting, as the rest was kind of more of the same (albeit with an improvement in quality over the two previous entries). Don’t get me wrong, it’s not a complete departure; we still get the Rube Goldberg sequences, the misdirects, and the gore, but the family dynamic and “bloodline” concept makes it feel just as unique as the first one did 25 years ago, giving the series a shot in the arm that another standard entry couldn't have managed after so much time has passed.
And it actually pays tribute to the other entries in some fun ways. A brief reprisal of the “If you kill someone you get their time” idea from 5 produces what may be the darkest joke in the entire franchise, and there’s a pretty good gag invoking one of the series’ earlier accidents. But it should go without saying that the film’s Bludworth scene is the highlight for such things, because as we know Tony Todd passed away last year shortly after completing his work here, forcing us to say goodbye to him after he utters his final line (if he has any other films in the can, we can be assured they won't be given IMAX releases). The scene itself is not much different than his others (popping up halfway through to offer cryptic remarks about death, mainly), but the weight the scene carries, knowing the actor’s time ran out in reality, makes it a true knockout. I’m not afraid to admit I actually teared up a bit, and the scene ended with a thunderous applause at my screening.
The characters are also more fun than they’ve been in the last few. 3-5 all focused on a group of younger friends, and they weren’t all that memorable on their own (I honestly can barely tell the male leads of 4 and 5 apart), but the family dynamic means we get the widest age range that we’ve seen since FD2, and the way they play off each other is also unique to the series. The standout is Richard Harmon as Erik, who featured heavily in the film’s first trailer (the tattoo parlor scene) and gets the most laughs as the obligatory skeptic character. But the drama of this somewhat estranged family was also compelling enough to keep my attention in between the death scenes; there’s a brief bit where one just holds out a spare key to his distant/not-well-off sibling that I found so sweet, which isn’t something I can remember feeling in the five other movies.
And the deaths! You'd think by now they'd run out of ways to kill these people, but nope. Each one is unique and has some kind of added bonus to it, with a healthy mix of the standard Goldberg sequences and what I guess we can call "Terry Deaths", after the shocking/amazing bus death in the first one. I don't want to spoil much of the particulars, except to say that the trailers have NOT spoiled as much as you might think, and that the movie will have you fearing a certain medical procedure in the same way the last one made us all weary (wearier?) of LASIK surgery. And there's a funny bit that almost comes off as a meta joke about the series' calling card, and it plays so perfectly I actually wanted to rewind the movie in the theater to see it play out again. Haven't had that kind of reaction in ages.
Long story short, they made it worth the wait, and it stands among the series’ best while also finding the most successful way to stand apart from the others. Even though it runs longer than any other one, it never really felt like that to me, and the death scenes are all terrific. It’s funny without going into FD4’s ridiculous territory (which I admit I liked on my first go around, but found less appealing on rewatches), and gives us a core cast of characters who we don’t necessarily WANT to die. Kudos to the new creative team for finding that balance and maintaining it throughout. Hopefully it won’t take another decade plus for a 7th film, but if Todd’s death has them deciding to maybe let it end here, at least it’ll be on an inarguable high.
What say you?
*I actually got yelled at for telling someone where the opening accident occurred, which made me think of the time someone (else) yelled at me for the phrase “a woman dies” (the context otherwise completely removed) in my review of the 4th one. People take spoilers very seriously with this series, I guess.
PLEASE, GO ON...The Monkey (2025)
FEBRUARY 23, 2025
GENRE: SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)
As I find Osgood Perkins' output pretty hit or miss so far (and by that I mean the only one I've liked is Longlegs) and the original Stephen King short story left so little an impression on me that I can't even be fully sure I read it*, I wasn't exactly going to be first in line for The Monkey. But when I heard it had Final Destination vibes, I got a little more interested, and so carved out some time (and 45 bucks for the silly popcorn bucket) to check it out on opening weekend after all.
Interestingly, the movie ended up being a rumination on the randomness of death, which struck a little nerve with me considering the circumstances under which I first saw (well, "attended" might be more accurate) Longlegs. In the movie, a pair of 12 year old twin brothers named Hal and Bill find a strange monkey toy in their departed (perhaps dead) father's things, and quickly discover that winding the key on its back and letting it play its little drum solo will result in someone dying. However, they can't *control* it per se; winding the key while thinking about the bully at school or something doesn't mean the bully at school will be the one to suddenly die under freak circumstances. Once the kids figure this out (and we in the audience chuckle at a few outlandish deaths) after losing their mother and beloved babysitter, they dump it down a well in hopes that no one will ever find it.
That wouldn't make for much of a movie though. We flash forward 25 years and the now adult Hal (Theo James) lives a solitary life and works at a grocery store, not exactly making the most of his time. He is, however, about to spend a week with his estranged son before the boy's stepfather (played by a cameoing veteran actor who does a lot of genre work but somehow has never made a King movie before? ) takes full custody. Unfortunately, the bizarre murders start up again, and (spoiler I guess? If it's a "reveal" it occurs pretty early) it seems his twin brother Bill, also estranged, may be responsible. Can Hal put a stop to it again and keep his son safe?
Naturally I won't answer that question, but I will say that the film's strange tonal shift from "hahaha, these deaths are so wacky!" to "Hey, maybe you should learn to embrace life" didn't quite land for me. I enjoyed the movie overall, but the first half is notably more successful, and the attempt to impart a little life lesson seemed grafted in from a different/earlier draft of the screenplay. Frank Darabont wanted to make this movie for years, and while I'm sure his version wouldn't have had the Rube Goldbergian deaths (though some are merely insane, like a guy camping in a sleeping bag being trampled by so many horses that the remains aren't even recognizably human), I think the "live life to the fullest because you never know when your time is up" messaging would have felt more earned, maybe even poignant, in Frank's more (imo) dependable hands. As is, it came off a bit like someone saying "Hey that's not funny" after everyone else in the room enjoyed a good laugh at a dark joke.
And that's a shame, because Perkins is unusually qualified to make a movie about the randomness of death, especially in a tale about parents and their children. His father was HIV-positive and died of pneumonia, and his mother died in one of the planes on 9/11. That kind of covers the whole spectrum of death, from "a known disease with a common outcome" to "wtf, what are the odds?" But either in his attempt to make a slightly more commercial movie than even Longlegs (the film was produced by James Wan, whose audience-pleasing films makes this an unusual pairing) or just the usual pratfalls of expanding a short story in to a full feature, the film's strengths all come in the top half, buying enough goodwill to keep it in the "worth seeing" section while falling short of a full blown win.
But the thing I found most interesting was an inscription on the box that the monkey is found in: "like life." As Hal explains a bit later via voiceover, it's a bit of a warning that the monkey's actions are random, much like life itself. No matter how much they want a certain person to die, the monkey is just going to kill who he wants - he's not working for you, even if you were nice enough to turn his key and give him a little exercise. But—and maybe this is just the result of my way of thinking—when the message first appeared, prior to Hal explaining its meaning, I read it differently. To me, "like life" meant, simply "ENJOY life", because you do not indeed know when your time is up. In the past year alone I've had friends die from long illnesses and others drop dead while carrying out the most mundane tasks in their day to day, and yet there are certainly a few people out there who deserve the early grave and are thriving. And if you have a certain sense of humor about it (which I do, and it seems Perkins does as well, considering how silly the deaths here), there's no reason not to, well, LIKE your life. Do what makes you happy, and take the risks. Ask out your crush. Try a new restaurant. Ride a unicycle. Whatever you think you might enjoy, there's no reason to keep putting it off. The brain is far too random to risk seeing that bus coming for you with no time to get out of the way and have your last thought be "Damn, I never tried sushi."
And I can't help but think the movie might have been more successful in the back half if it actually went with this theme full throttle instead of just kind of tossing it in with moments left in the runtime. Instead, there's a very strange additional character named Ricky, played by Rohan Campbell from Halloween Ends, who is obsessed with the monkey and wants to keep it for himself. It seems like half of his role ended up being excised in order to keep focus on James' dual performance as Hal and Bill, especially when it comes to Ricky's own family, as he, like Hal and Bill, has a brother who doesn't seem to be a lot like him but also kind of completely spaced out. It felt like there might have been an attempt to draw parallels between Ricky's situation and Bill's (especially when you consider the similar physical appearance of their mother next to Bill and Hal's aunt, who raises them after their mother dies), but none of it really lands, and honestly they could have cut him out entirely and not really changed anything. Nothing against Campbell, to be clear, it's just a strange diversion to the narrative without much payoff, and coming at the expense of Hal and Bill's potential time together.
Third act blunders aside, it's a solidly entertaining way to kill 100 minutes, if nothing else. There's a laid back priest played by Nicco Del Rio who is almost worth the price of admission alone, and—if someone tracks these things—features the equivalent to Lawrence of Arabia's legendary match cut in terms of darkly funny reveals (if you've seen the movie, it involves a cut to a portrait of one of the male cast members). And even though a lot of the attempts at genuine emotion don't quite work, Tatiana Maslany does wonderful work with her role as the kids' mother, who seems to already be aware, without the monkey's unusual way of suggesting it, that life is too precious to waste. Maybe an extended cut (or at least a few deleted scenes) on the eventual Blu-ray will clear up some of its murkier narrative issues, but as is it's still worth seeing, and continues Perkins' current (and surprising!) transition into a guy who can keep his warped sensibilities while still telling a story that a general audience can get behind on the big screen.
What say you?
*I know I read "The Mist" before the movie came out, and remember a couple others in the same Skeleton Crew collection, so I must have read it all the way through x number of years ago as I'd have no reason to be skipping around. But I reread it after watching the movie and nothing rang a bell. At any rate, for those curious, beyond (most of) the characters and how they relate to each other, the story and movie are nothing alike. Even the title character is different; in the story he's got the cymbals and in the movie he's got a standard drum. Which worked out nicely for AMC, since the drum can double as a (tiny) popcorn bucket.
PLEASE, GO ON...Heart Eyes (2025)
FEBRUARY 4, 2025
GENRE: SLASHER (and ROMCOM!)
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PREVIEW SCREENING)
If you’ve ever even taken as much as a cursory glance at this site before, you probably know how much I love slasher movies. But what you may NOT know is that I also harbor a similar soft spot for romcoms; I can’t recite them chapter and verse the way I can my favorite F13s and Halloweens, but I’m certainly just as easy a mark for a new one when it comes along. So needless to say, the elevator pitch for Heart Eyes-a romcom that revolves around a slasher killer-is about the most appealing one I’ve heard in ages. Like even if one side of the equation didn't work, I'd probably be happy with the other, you know?
Watching it unfold it actually dawned on me for the first time that the two genres offer a sort of comfort in their admittedly basic formula. Both have rules they need to live by in order for their respective fans to be won over; a deviation from that formula can lead to revolt. And that’s what makes Heart Eyes so impressive to me, because you can absolutely despite one of the genres but still feel pretty satisfied with it as an entry of the other type. This element was largely absent from the marketing so far; the few hints of the film’s romantic angle (leads Olivia Holt and Mason Gooding grabbing the same coffee, for example) were largely overshadowed by the slasher element, making it seem like it’s just another masked killer movie albeit one with a bit of romance thrown in (as opposed to the genre’s usual approach of just a general horniness among its core cast). But that isn’t really how the movie plays out at all-it really does function as a romantic comedy, perhaps even moreso than as a slasher in some ways.
So if you just heard the idea but thought it was going to cater more toward the slasher side of things: fear not! There’s a meet-cute, complete with accidental headbutt! There’s a mad dash to the airport! There’s the sassy friend who encourages our heroine to take her chance! Director Josh Ruben and the trio of screenwriters (Phillip Murphy, Michael Kennedy, and Christopher Landon) balance the needs of both formulas in an expert fashion, and honestly my one minor complaint concerns the slasher stuff. And given the relative dearth of such fare in theaters anymore (there was exactly ONE given a wide release in all of 2024, Fly Me To The Moon), I kind of wish the marketing had showcased the blend a little better, if only to assure potential romcom lovers that this would genuinely scratch that itch for them.
So how does it work? Well, after a cold open showing the killer (dubbed “HEK”) taking out a vapid influencer couple in a vineyard, a flurry of news reports tell us that this murderer has taken out a lot of couples in different cities (Boston and Philly) on the two previous Valentine’s Days, and now he seems to be in Seattle. Then we meet our leads: ad exec Ally (Holt) has turned in a dud campaign, and her boss has brought in an outside fixer to help come up with a new one. Said fixer? Why it’s Jay (Gooding), the handsome and charming guy she met in the coffee shop that morning! What are the odds???
Anyway, the two meet for dinner to figure out a new campaign, but his attempts to turn it into a date don’t go well. However, when Ally sees her ex with his new flame, she quickly retorts to the “We have to pretend to be a couple” tactic and kisses Jay so the ex can see and hopefully be jealous. Alas, the ex doesn’t really care, and worse: their kiss attracts the attention of HEK, who was staking out this fancy restaurant to find new victims. What follows is essentially a long chase scene as the killer stalks them throughout the city, with our heroes finding a way to check every romcom box along the way, allowing them to fall in love (awww) but with the killer never more than a few minutes behind them (ahh!!!).
At about the hour mark, the movie really nails how well this idea can work (and honestly, made me wonder why no one ever really tried it before that I can recall). HEK has chased our heroes to a drive-in, and they duck into a van, assuming its owners are elsewhere. Turns out they’re just in the back, fooling around, but the couple is kind of into having an audience and they continue enjoying the evening back there while Ally and Jay lay low to avoid detection from their hunter. While they do so, they have a heart to heart, briefly/softly interrupted by the sounds of the couple going at it in the back. It’s an incredibly funny scene, built around a tense situation, AND it’s giving the romcom formula the obligatory “This is why I get scared when I like someone” conversation, all at once. It’s a remarkable balancing act, and I spent the bulk of the scene just kind of in awe at how well it was working.
The balance goes a bit askew for the film’s finale, however (minor spoilers ahead!). Without getting into the details, I will say that the unmasking of HEK wasn’t particularly surprising. Part of the reason for that is that the film offered almost no other suspects to who it could be (honestly, I assumed it would be a Hell Fest-esque “He’s just some guy” kind of reveal, and I am leaning toward the idea that it might have been a better choice) due to its compact cast. The other is actually weirdly revealed in the film itself – a flashback sequence that includes a scene that was clearly cut. This scene explained where a character went during a previous major setpiece, and while I’m sure it was removed for pacing or something, it unfortunately left careful viewers wondering where that person was, and thus going by the law of slasher films, realizing this means also realizing that they’re the killer long before the film springs it on us as a surprise.
That’s why red herrings are so important, because you gotta have a few other characters as a buffer for these moments to really land. Take Scream: it seemingly comes down to “It’s either Stu or Randy!” but there’s still the sheriff or Sid’s dad to consider. Here? Well, I guess Ally’s boss could kind of count, but as she only appeared once before that (and is played by veteran comedian Michaela Watkins) I doubt that anyone on the planet would a. be thinking it might be her or b. would be satisfied if it was. To be clear, the identity of the killer isn’t the issue, and the actor is relishing getting to do the big “Why I do this” monologue, but without any other suspects, and a weird editing choice making it a foregone conclusion anyway, it didn’t quite pack the same punch the rest of the movie did.
Otherwise it’s a remarkably solid example of both of its genres. The leads have terrific chemistry and are both naturally engaging performers; I’m not as familiar with Holt but as for Gooding I actually kind of get why they let him survive certain death not once but twice in the Screams: it’d be silly to toss away the charisma (plus we let it slide for Dewey even more times). The kills are good and gory but without feeling like the filmmakers spent more time concerned with the punchline than the setup, an issue which plagues many modern slashers (so, yes, there are honest to god chase scenes here!). And one must give props to Gigi Zumbado for a late-movie monologue that I can’t explain without giving away the gag, but once it clicked I was cackling and cheering, and she delivers it perfectly. Everyone, as they say, understood the assignment, which is even more impressive when you consider how unusual that assignment was. Basically it’s just a damn good time at the movies. I’d even go again, which is about the highest praise I can give anything these days. Plus it’s an amazing litmus test if you are, like me, a horror fan with a not-so-secret love of seeing Sandra/Julia/etc do their thing: take a date, and if they’re equally enjoying both sides of the equation, you got yourself a keeper. I alas saw it with my slasher-loving buddy (who didn't put out, the prude) but I couldn't help but be amused at the irony: my wife is not exactly drooling at the prospect of an upcoming romantic comedy (I see most of them by myself) but does enjoy slashers as long as they're more in line with Scream and such than, say, Rob Zombie's Halloween (i.e. brutally violent and not "fun" in any way). So while there are some horror fans out there who might have to trick their partner into seeing this by saying it's a romantic comedy, when this hits Blu-ray I might have to try the reverse approach to get her on board.
PLEASE, GO ON...Companion (2025)
JANUARY 31, 2025
GENRE: THRILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)
Fangoria's weekly newsletter came today and it was titled "See Companion with a companion" or something to that effect, but alas like 90% of the movies I see, I saw it by myself. I only live near two of friends, both of whom have wacky work schedules, and I myself tend to keep weird hours, so I've just gotten used to not bothering to coordinate schedules, opting to go off on my own when the showtimes are in my favor. It's not a bad thing, really; the only time I feel self conscious is if it's a comedy, because laughing alone just makes me think someone behind me is going to think I'm a budding Max Cady.
(SPOILERS AHEAD! Slightly more than even the trailer gives away! If you haven't seen the trailers, particularly the second one that they only released a few weeks ago, perhaps do not read until you've seen the movie or at least the trailers. Consider this a warning for the entire review, not just the next paragraph.)
But I, and probably a lot of people, have a friend who I kind of wish I saw it with, because the core of the movie is about Iris (Sophie Thatcher) finding her voice and standing up to her boyfriend Josh (Jack Quaid) when she realizes he sees her as nothing more than an object to boss around and use for his own pleasure when he feels like it, never taking her own needs into account. And my own friend is in this kind of relationship, where their partner practically admits that their only use to them is to take care of them without giving a crap about being a true partner in return. Naturally it's none of my business and I know from experience that if I as much as hint that they deserve better, they go on the defensive and offer "No, they do love me, they just don't show it" kind of explanations, so I just keep my mouth shut, settling for a sigh when I see my friend getting ignored and even occasionally insulted in plain view of their mutuals. (I guess we're supposed to assume they're much nicer at home with no one around? Seems backwards.) But I also know that inspiration comes from unlikely places, so I just hope that they (not a big moviegoer) someday sit down to stream what looks like a fun genre movie with the girl from Yellowjackets, and then are surprised to get their wheels turning when they see a bit of their own predicament laid out on screen. Maybe they'll even get inspired to start taking the steps to stick up for themselves like Iris eventually does? A friend can dream.
Again if you've seen the trailer (or ideally, the movie itself in full!) then you know that Iris isn't a human being, but an AI companion (read: sexbot) for Josh, the tech bro douchebag. The reveal occurs fairly early in the proceedings (if it's even a full half hour I'd be surprised, though in a rarity for a modern movie, it actually felt a bit shorter than it was so I might be off), but even before then you could see how he treats her and think "It's like he doesn't even consider her a real person at all, let alone his girlfriend." There's a subtle bit early on, when they arrive at the isolated lake house that most of the movie takes place in, and we see him carrying his shoulder bag while Iris lugs both of their (much heavier) suitcases, and later during a bedroom scene we see him orgasm and then immediately roll over and go to sleep without as much as a final kiss (and, clearly, not making the effort to get her past the finish line). There's chivalry (carrying both bags/getting her an O first), and then there's equality (recognizing she is capable of carrying her own/use your imagination), and then there's whatever this is.
It's actually part of why I feel the trailer shouldn't have given the reveal away. If you go in knowing she's a robot, you might have a distance from his behavior, a sort of "Well who cares, it's her job to serve him!" But by spending 25-30 minutes with this person and seeing how hard they are trying to please their "perfect" boyfriend while he continues to belittle her with endless microaggressions, you're fully on her side by the time we find out she's not actually flesh and blood, and thus it doesn't matter. Robot or not, you deserve better, Iris!
Of course, Ex Machina already covered a lot of this material, but it branches off in a new direction thanks to Iris being reprogrammed to do ~something~ (THAT I won't spoil) and how this begins a chain reaction of... well, the sort of thing that makes this feel more like a horror movie than the earlier film. It's still firmly in thriller territory, but the deaths are far more gory than you'd see in your typical "people turn on each other" kind of story, and it has a Coen-esque spiral of violence that I couldn't help but appreciate. You will never look at an electric wine opener the same way again, I assure you.
But even through all the mayhem (and laughs; thanks to Harvey Guillén in particular the movie is very funny at times), first time director Drew Hancock-working from his own script-never loses focus on the core concept, which is that Iris may be a package of nuts and bolts tied together with programming, but she's still more empathetic and human than her narcissistic boyfriend. This is aided immensely by how good the two leads are. Quaid's charms (it's crazy how he inherited the absolute best qualities of his parents) are a perfect fit for this character, as we absolutely understand why she'd be drawn to him even before we learn she's actually programmed to. And even when we know what he's really like, there's still a sense of "I can fix him" that is unfortunately the reason so many people (not robots) are in these kinds of relationships in the real world. You WANT to like this guy, even though he repeatedly proves he's garbage.
And Thatcher is already genre royalty thanks to Heretic and Yellowjackets (not to mention Boogeyman, which is better than you'd expect for a PG13 King short story expansion), but this might be her best work yet. There's a scene where her programming has been switched to speaking German and she's desperately trying to communicate, and there's also some humor built into it because Iris is unable to lie (so when the cop asks her what's wrong, she answers truthfully, even though the situation would be better for her if she lied - but he can't understand her anyway!), and the way she toes that line where you feel sorry for her while also kind of chuckling at the irony of her answers is a marvel to watch.
Speaking of irony, it IS kind of a weird time to release a movie where we root for the AI robot, which is somewhat distracting. AI sucks, to be clear, and our government has been overrun with tech bros who want to go all in on it for whatever reason (well, money, duh, but it's very shortsighted even by their standards). At least when Ex Machina came out this stuff was still "in the future..." kind of material, but now it's killing the environment and threatening jobs *today*. Luckily they don't really even use the term "AI" all that much (if ever?), so you can kind of ignore it if you want to, but still. It's THERE, you know?
That said, the takeaway here has nothing to do with AI or robots. Maybe it's just because of my own personal connection to this sort of thing happening (though, again, I'm sure lots of people do), but as much as I was enjoying the movie I kept feeling a bit sad, wondering if my very human friend will ever learn to stand up for themselves the way Iris eventually does here, or if their own shitty partner will keep using them as a toy for their own amusement until they get bored and move on, having wasted the best years of my friend's life. It's a surprisingly hopeful movie in that respect, and another winner from the Barbarian team (Zach Cregger is one of the producers here, alongside his partners from that film). My only real issue? When Iris is delivered to Josh, he's listening to "Iris" from Goo Goo Dolls, and it's a good gag, but I woulda gone deeper with "Iris" from the band Live. Since the trailer is too spoilery and you should only be reading this if you've seen it, I'm gonna put that banger in the usual place.
What say you?
P.S. I know this is the first review in months. Don't get excited for a full return; I am, alas, still basically calling it a day here due to the fact that it no longer generates any income whatsoever and also I'm working on a new book which I'd rather focus my writing time on instead. But the whole "I wish _____ would see this!", something I never could have predicted before I sat down, kinda left me with a bunch of thoughts so I decided to put them down here instead of in a Bluesky thread. Plus it's kind of amusing that Lukas Gage is in this, because he was also in Smile 2, which is the last time I reviewed anything. I like a coincidence! From now on I vow to review any genre film he's in, at the very least.
PLEASE, GO ON...Smile 2 (2024)
OCTOBER 20, 2024
GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)
In just about every way that matters, Smile 2 actually improves on the original film, which is a pretty good feat for any horror sequel, let alone one that’s following a movie that was itself a winner to begin with (comparatively, the reviews praising Winnie the Pooh 2 as an improvement on the original are not exactly saying much). But obviously, the novelty of its central gimmick has worn off some, so if you haven’t seen it yet and plan to, I urge you not to make the same mistake I did and rewatch the original a day before, because the déjà vu won’t help.
And really, as long as you remember the concept, you don’t need a refresher anyway. The opening scene (presented as one long shot) gives us the only link the movie really has to the first one, with survivor Joel (Kyle Gallner) at the end of his 6-7 day curse and deciding to at least pass it on to someone who deserves to die (a meth dealer, in this case). Things go awry and the curse ends up passed to a guy who was at the meth dealer’s house to buy some for himself, and THAT dude passes it to our new hero: Skye Riley.
Skye is played by Naomi Scott, an actual pop star/actress, and her character is far more interesting than the original’s therapist, who was sympathetic enough but just not a particularly compelling character (the question to always ask is: would I watch a movie about this person even without the horror aspect?). Not the case here; Skye is a recovering addict who unfortunately messed up her back in a car accident that killed her famous actor boyfriend, and needs to go through shady local dealers to score Vicodin to deal with the pain, because she can’t get a prescription anymore. We spend a lot of time showing how draining it can be being a pop star; yes you’re rich and blah blah blah, but you also feel the weight of everyone who is relying on you to make their own living – if the back pain and, then, mental turmoil of being cursed by smiling ghost people no one else can see take enough of a toll that she has to cancel the tour, that puts so many people out of work, not to mention ruins her reputation within the business as a whole.
And similarly, the entire movie hinges on Scott, who (outside of Gallner’s opening) is in every scene and just about every shot within those scenes. There’s a brief exception that felt weird at the time and feels even weirder given a later reveal (more on that later) where she walks out of the room and her friend (Dylan Gelula) has a brief encounter with Skye’s mother/manager (Rosemarie DeWitt), but otherwise every single thing we see is from her POV. If she doesn’t hear it/witness it with her own eyes, we don’t see it either. This adds to the intensity immensely, so even though we are familiar with this demon’s tricks, it still manages to be quite effective in that department.
Those who are hoping to find out more about this entity will be disappointed, however. We don’t get anything new; if anything the script seems to be geared towards those who saw the original and have retained what little we learned there. At around an hour or so we meet a character whose brother was one of the previous victims that Rose and Joel tracked backwards from their own experience, and he just kind of quickly sums up the “After a week you kill yourself in front of someone and they will be cursed in turn” concept, but it’s a Cliffs Notes version that seems more of a quick reminder instead of a full explanation for those who might be newcomers. But that’s a good thing! Writer/director Parker Finn seems to understand that the more a monster is explained, the less scary it is, but there are always people out there who want those kind of explanations. So to them I say: stay home and be wrong there!
That said, the movie also lacks a moment as horrific as the cat scene in the original. For me, the most unnerving thing was a scene where Skye was in a hospital bed hooked up to an IV drip, and then the ghost thing showed up so she tried to escape. The repeated closeups of her tugging on the needle in her arm really icked me out, as not only am I petrified of embolisms, but when I was in the hospital the nurse messed up and caused some brief nerve damage in my arm for like a week, so the memories of that came flooding back as she yanked on this (apparently very secure!) needle in her own arm. Gah!
My other main issue requires a spoiler, so skip this and the next paragraph if you don’t want to know details about the movie’s ending. Before I get into it I will say that it mostly improves on the original’s ending (which borderline angered me), and the actual last shot is an all timer, so it’s not a total loss. However, it involves a reveal that a certain chunk of the movie was actually hallucinated, but doesn’t make it clear WHEN this switch occurred. And did none of it in that section actually happen, or just the more horrific parts? I’m fine with not explaining the demon’s origins, but I definitely would have appreciated a sort of Saw-esque montage explaining how things were really playing out all that time.
And (again, skip this one if you don’t want spoilers) as I mentioned earlier, this causes an odd thing with that earlier scene with Gelula and DeWitt, because one of the movie’s big reveals is that the former character was the entity in disguise the entire time, so it doesn’t make sense that she was able to interact with Skye’s mom, making it feel like a bit of a cheat on top the aforementioned disruption to the whole “all through Skye’s eyes” approach. Also, the reason Gelula’s BFF character isn’t actually around is because her and Skye had a major blowout a year or so before, and there’s never any real explanation for what caused their fight. Not that it’s essential to the proceedings, but it felt like something designed to be a reveal that never came. (That said, as someone who loves when old text messages actually show up on people’s phones in movies, their last messages to each other, capping off their fight, are HILARIOUS.)
Those quibbles aside, I was pleasantly surprised how much I enjoyed it, not even noticing that it was over two hours long (something I grumbled about prior to my arrival at the theater). As the first film was compared to The Ring, it’s not hard to imagine a scenario where this was a total disaster like that film’s sequel was, so the fact that it actually improved on it in several ways is remarkable. And that the climax recalled another recent genre film of note (can’t say which one without spoiling them both, though I can say I really liked that one too but got too busy to ever get around to reviewing it) was a delightful bonus. Furthermore, for whatever it’s worth: Skye Riley > Lady Raven.
What say you?
PLEASE, GO ON...Terrifier 3 (2024)
OCTOBER 10, 2024
GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PREMIERE SCREENING)
Given their phenomenal success and my own status as an easy mark for slasher movies, it may surprise you to learn that I cannot count myself as a huge fan of the Terrifier franchise. There's a lot to appreciate in the first two, no doubt, but the tonal shifts, sluggish editing, and random plotting keep me at arm's length; I've never been the guy who watches a F13 just for the kills, but when I watch these films that's pretty much all I'm there for. But I also watched the first two films at home on Blu-ray instead of in theaters, so I figured that seeing Terrifier 3 with an excited opening night crowd, along with the series' biggest budget yet, would result in some "third time's the charm" kind of reaction.
Alas, it didn't make much of a difference. The tonal shifts have been reduced (Art is less torture-y this time around; no salt in the wound or cat o' nine tails action), but it's still got that "Are we watching the assembly cut or a final edit?" feeling. And while it's not too random with its plotting for the most part, the climax just goes way off the rails with nonsense; I don't want to spoil anything but I have to note that I was not expecting to suddenly be thinking about Return of the Living Dead and Passion of the Christ as this slasher movie reached its conclusion, not to mention an out of nowhere _____ (it's on the living room floor) tossed into the mix with seconds left in the runtime. Again, I didn't DISLIKE it, but I can't help but feel disappointed that the same issues were present yet again.
Part of the problem is that it takes forever to get going. In the first 20 minutes, we get an extended (and ultimately completely disconnected) kill sequence, a resolution of T2's epilogue shocker, and finally a scene that sets up the film's five year time jump. Then we catch up with Jonathan and Sienna, the former at college and the latter just being released from a facility where she has been presumably letting her mind heal. She's off to live with her mom's sister and her family, trying hard to be normal but still having flashes of her dead friends, and doing her best to be sisterly to her little cousin who is unaware of her past but keeps sneaking peeks at her diary.
But here's the thing: by the 45 minute mark we haven't really gotten much further than what I already said. Vicky is now immortal like Art, for some reason, and also more or less taking the place of The Little Pale Girl (who is MIA and never mentioned) but there's no discernible explanation for this suddent shift in her character. In fact, since she birthed Art's new head, having him be vulnerable now due to her inferior DNA or something would have maybe made more sense? To be fair she makes for a more interesting partner than LPG, but it felt more like a decision based around maybe that actress being unavailable and not wanting to recast, as opposed to a purely creative one.
And for a two hour movie, there really should be more to the plot than "Art's back and wants to finish the job by killing Sienna and Jonathan." A chance encounter with a drunk mall Santa gives him new duds for this adventure (this scene is probably the movie's best, thanks to fun turns from Daniel Roebuck as Santa and Clint Howard as his drinking buddy, plus Art's genuine excitement about meeting "Santa"), but the reveal is slightly underwhelming since we saw it already in the movie's cold open (which, again, never relates to anything else that happens, despite the sequence ending on a cliffhanger of its own). And he takes his sweet time getting to them; the film is actually about 15 minutes shorter than the previous one (thank you!) but at times it felt even longer due to Art having no real urgency to complete his mission and very little else to the narrative.
It also curiously leaves some scenes off-screen. Sienna returns to the Terrifer to find her sword, believing it can kill Art, but we don't see any of his occur; she just comes home with it along with some dirty hands to sell the idea. With so much of the movie set either on Jonathan's campus or Sienna's new house, the change in scenery would have been welcome. More troubling, however, is that two major kills occur offscreen entirely, one of which is done to try to delay a surprise, but it doesn't really land. Basically Vicky tells Sienna that a mangled head is ______'s, but after a couple minutes her and Art reveal that person is alive and the head is actually _____'s. But the issue is, their proof is still flimsy, so it feels like it's yet another ruse, only the person seemingly is really dead because they never return. Also the movie ends on the series' most abrupt cliffhanger yet a few minutes later, so it's just a completely ineffective way of sending this character off.
All that said, it's certainly firing on all cylinders when it comes to being a Christmas slasher; even though I didn't like it as much as I hoped I would, I'm sure I'll add it to my mix of holiday horror along with the three Black Christmases, the Silent Night Deadly Nights, Christmas Bloody Christmas, etc. In addition to Art's Santa suit, everywhere he goes is decked out in full force with lights and decor, the soundtrack's got a lot of the standards, and it's even got some snow, which puts it above every SNDN sequel (all of them were shot in LA and certainly didn't have the dough for fake stuff). I wish he had implemented some seasonally appropriate weaponry into the mix (come on, you know my man coulda done wonders with an icicle or even a fireplace poker) but it's hard to miss that sort of thing when he has brought a chainsaw, liquid nitrogen, and rats along this time around. The FX continue to impress, and there's a cameo from a certain makeup guru that feels like he's giving it his blessing, which must have been an amazing score for the creative team. And David Howard Thornton is giving a truly great performance as Art, who never makes a sound and yet has a complete and identifiable personality; his reactions and expressions rarely fail to amuse and his physicality is up there with Robert Englund in Freddy's heyday.
The acting from the supporting cast is also much better than the previous entries as well, thanks to having the budget for more professional actors. In addition to Roebuck and Howard, Jason Patric also pops in for a few scenes (don't want to say as who, it's kind of a reveal), and Bryce Johnson from Willow Creek does some nice work as Sienna's sympathetic uncle. Lauren Lavera has a lot more range to display this time around (it's actually surprising how little time she interacts with Art as they are basically in two different movies for the most part; it's akin to Halloween Ends on that level), dealing with her PTSD, being a surrogate big sister to her cousin, but also having some adult bonding time with her aunt (her mother's sister) and trying to keep close to Jonathan, who is away at school and just trying to live a normal life.
I honestly think that with some judicious editing that this could easily be the best of the three, thanks to all I mentioned in the last two paragraphs. With improved acting and character work, a more consistent tone, and the fact that I'm an easy mark for Xmas slashing, it's really just the at times interminable pacing that kept me from enjoying it as much as I probably would have if someone came in and got it down to 90 or even 100 minutes. Like, the opening scene is solid, but it also runs 10 minutes and without any connection to the rest, in retrospect you look back at it and realize it could have been cut in half, which would make it more effective in its job (which, as anyone can tell, is to give the movie an opening kill before a long chunk of getting the audience up to speed). With the film slated to maybe even top the weekend box office (which is insane and awesome) the 4th film is a guarantee, and I'll be there, but I will no longer hold out hope that the pacing (which has been an issue for all three films, even the mercifully-in-retrospect 84 minute original) will ever be more to my liking. Here's hoping they can at least keep coming up with good kills and funny stuff for Thornton to do to make up for it.
What say you?
P.S. The film was showing as part of an event to debut the new Ice Nine Kills video (which I thought was great but as their one time lawyer I'm a bit biased!). Since the T3 trailer spoils half the kills, I'm putting the video here instead, though you have to sign in to watch due to all the gore (!!!). Enjoy!
PLEASE, GO ON...Salem's Lot (2024)
SEPTEMBER 25, 2024
GENRE: VAMPIRE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PREMIERE SCREENING)
It's amusing to me that Salem's Lot has been adapted three times, and while the first two were TV miniseries that got theatrical play*, this newest incarnation was meant for theatrical release only to be shipped off to streaming (Max, specifically). However, we were lucky enough to get a one-off showing here in LA as part of Beyond Fest, so we could appreciate the visuals and fine work from its cast on the big screen, without rebuffering issues or–if applicable–spending part of it looking at our phones if the movie failed to hold our attention. But in a weird way, maybe it'd be better to watch the movie that way, as we could assume all of the missing story beats occurred while we were doomscrolling.
For those who haven't read the novel or seen either of the other adaptations (Tobe Hooper's celebrated 1979 one, and Mikael Salomon's solid TNT take in 2004), the basic story is intact—no one's ever drastically overhauled King's 1975 novel. A writer named Ben Mears (Lewis Pullman this time around) returns to his small hometown in Maine to get inspiration for his next book, targeting the town's obligatory "haunted" house once owned by a gangster named Marsten. Upon his arrival he learns that the house has just been purchased by a pair of mysterious antique store owners named Barlow and Straker, with the former man never actually seen as the latter handles all of the operations. Not long after their arrival in town, a body count starts to rise, and after a pooling of information between Ben, a kid named Mark, a teacher named Matt, and a local woman/Ben's love interest Susan, they conclude that the town has a vampire problem, and they go about trying to end it.
All of that is intact here. Writer/director Gary Dauberman doesn't change much from the original novel (even the period setting is retained; the 2004 one updated it for modern day but this is actually set in the novel's publication time of 1975); the most significant diversion is that the town has a new drive-in, and the climax is set there instead of in/around the Marsten house, with the story concluding there instead of an epilogue set years later (if I'm being honest, the ending of King's book wasn't very satisfying, and all three versions have done their best to improve on it). But perhaps he should have made more changes, or followed the path of the predecessors and pushed for a two part movie, because seeing this familiar story being told again albeit on double speed does it no favors.
A friend of mine said he went to a test screening of the film that ran around three hours, and I do not doubt it (it's around 110 min now including both credit sequences). Not only are there names in the credits for characters who do not appear (such as Ruth Crockett, daughter of Larry the real estate guy, who himself is given far less screentime than he did in the two previous adaptations), but it seems like the entire second act of the movie occurs off-screen. There's a scene where Alfre Woodard's character, Dr Cody (usually a male named Jimmy) goes to see the sheriff (William Sadler, always a delight) to ask for his help, and he replies something like "Look around you, you see what they're doing to this town!?" - and I burst out laughing, because NO, we haven't seen any of it! Characters are constantly popping up as if we should have met them already; hell, when (spoiler) Barlow kills Mark's parents, it's in the same scene where we met them for the first time. Right from the start it felt like a movie that was being sped up in the edit, as there's zero buildup to Barlow and Straker being in town and the guys are moving the coffin into the Marsten house basement at like the five minute mark. And, to be clear, my friend didn't tell me about this until days later; it wasn't information I had in my head all along. He just confirmed that the "this was cut to the bone" sense I got from it was 100% apt.
In fact I almost feel bad writing a negative review, because there was probably a good movie in there before the re-editing robbed it of its soul. Dauberman has proven to be a dependable talent over the years, and again, the cast is great. I've always enjoyed Pullman's work since he was younger (he was the 18ish son in Strangers 2) and it's nice to see him ascend to leading man status here, and Bill Camp (as Burke) is one of those actors who seem to have been put on this earth to play folksy/endearing Stephen King characters. And while he didn't seem to be on the same page as everyone else tonally, I was delighted by Pilou Asbæk as Straker; the scene where he attempts to kidnap the Glick kids had me full on cackling as he just keeps staring at them after they turn down his offer to drive them home (and the subsequent scene where he does indeed capture one of them, played out in silhouette against a setting sun, is gorgeous). Barlow's design is a direct recycle of Reggie Nalder's from the Hooper version, which is a little disappointing, but it's still an effective visual.
Alas, the director is Gary Dauberman, not Zack Snyder, so I doubt there will be enough angry/petulant losers harassing HBO for years until they finally give him more money to complete his original vision just to shut the crybabies up. I'm sure a few years from now he will give an interview somewhere and talk about his longer cut and what was lost, but until then, all we have is this: a nice looking, well cast movie that tried to stay too faithful to a story that previous filmmakers couldn't even fully capture with nearly twice as much time to do so. Maybe those who are completely new to the story will find more to like, because those story beats won't be as familiar, but for me, who has seen/read this story before (three times, in fact!), it came across as too hollow to make much of an impact. And that's damning for a big screen showing (at Beyond Fest no less, where the crowd energy is always infectious). If I watched on Max, I can guarantee you I would have found some really funny memes on Instagram by the end of it.
What say you?
*Hooper's version was (irony alert) cut down and played theatrically in Europe. Both parts of the TNT one had a one night Fathom Events kind of theatrical exhibition the night before it premiered, which I remember because I went. And it played off a DVD at a time when 35mm was still the majority format, which tickled me: a dvd in a theater of a movie designed for broadcast.
PLEASE, GO ON...Speak No Evil (2024)
SEPTEMBER 23, 2024
GENRE: THRILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)
If you’ve been to a movie in the past six months you’ve probably seen the trailer for Speak No Evil; if you go as often as I do you are probably more familiar with some of the film’s moments than you are with the faces of your own family members at this point. Which is kind of ironic, because it’s a remake of a film that isn’t all that old, and the film doesn’t really have much to it beyond its thrills, so the familiarity was a detriment to what was actually a solid nailbiter.
If you’ve somehow escaped the trailer (or, again, the original film – more on that soon), the plot is pretty simple: an American family (Mackenzie Davis, Scoot McNairy, and a daughter) makes the acquaintance of an English couple (James McAvoy and Aisling Franciosi) who has a single child of their own. They hit it off, the kids enjoy playing together, and everyone has a pretty good time. Then the Americans go home (to London, having moved for a job that ended up fizzling) and get an invite from Paddy (McAvoy) to join them for a weekend in their country home. Wanting a change of pace, they decide to go, despite some hesitations re: not really knowing them all that well. The first day goes smoothly enough, but Paddy and Louise (Davis) butt heads over their differing lifestyles (he hunts with a rifle, she’s a vegetarian, etc.), forcing Ben (McNairy) to constantly try to play peacekeeper. Eventually they cross a line that’s too much for Davis and she decides that they need to leave early, at which point it becomes clear why this film might end up on a site covering horror movies.
That said, as far as violence goes it’s still pretty tame even for a thriller. The order of the day here isn’t racking up a body count, but seeing how far writer/director James Watkins can push the tension BEFORE it erupts into violence. And thanks to McAvoy’s towering performance, it actually works quite well, as you get the idea he can suddenly kill any of them just as quickly and casually as he lets out an inappropriate comment or putdown. If you’ve seen the trailer you’re probably familiar with the “Cotton Eyed Joe” dance scene between the two kids, but the full version is truly terrifying as he gets angrier and angrier with his son’s inability to keep time. He's obviously played villains before, but he's in next-level mode here; the sort of role that might get name-checked among "great psychopath performances" down the road.
Honestly, the whole thing really hinges on McAvoy’s performance. Everyone’s good (Franciosi in particular has a tricky role in that you aren’t sure until very late if her Ciara is a true partner to her more outwardly evil husband or another of his victims), but this is all his show as he walks that fine line of being juuuuust weird enough to understand why Ben and Louise might not want to stay as long as originally planned but without going so far that they seem like idiots for not leaving even sooner. Of course, people have still decried the two for their actions, saying “Any normal person would have left already!” or whatever, but the script showcases how both of them are kind of afraid to do anything about anything (Louise won’t jump into the water with the rest, Ben won’t let her have it about a brief affair she had), so it tracks that they’d probably feel they were being rude by leaving.
Also, as a parent, I want to assure non-parents who have seen it that yes, we absolutely would go back for our child’s sacred “Lovey.” There’s a scene in the movie where they DO decide to finally leave due to something Ciara had done that unnerved them, only to turn back when they realize they forgot their daughter’s beloved stuffed bunny named Mr Hoppy. And then, after they discover Paddy’s true nature and try to make a calm escape so as not to enrage him, they see he has thrown the doll on the roof, forcing Ben to climb a rickety ladder to retrieve it. I’m sure childless audiences feel this is insane and they would just drive away, but nope. You wouldn’t believe how long I spent in the dark looking for my kid’s beloved Elmo doll when he dropped it during a walk many years back, so the idea of merely turning around to grab it from the bedroom of a house owned by some people I didn’t really gel with is certainly within the realm of possibility. And the ladder scene is Paddy trying to call their bluff; if Ben DIDN’T go out of his way to get the thing, now that it’s been established over and over how much the doll meant to their daughter, Paddy would have known right away that they knew his secret. So TLDR: it's not as dumb as critics would like you to believe.
Which brings us to the whole remake aspect, and you might want to skip the next two paragraphs if you haven’t seen either version, as there are spoilers for both! Yes, surprising no one, this version is much tamer than the Danish original, in which the bad guys won. That doesn’t happen here, but I didn’t mind it, because ultimately it’s a different kind of movie. The original was your typical dark/grim European thriller, most of which end on a downer, and while there’s nothing wrong with those, to me personally they often lack tension. Once we know how far they’ll go (in that case, the Paddy character kills his own son) there’s precious little reason to believe anyone else will make it out alive. Here, by repeatedly putting the heroes in danger, Watkins gives the movie a suspenseful edge that the original somewhat lacked, because there's simply more uncertainty.
That said (again we are still in spoiler territory here! Skip to next paragraph if you must!), Watkins maybe plays things a little TOO safe, in that the family not only escapes intact but barely even sustains any injuries (Ben hurts his foot a bit, that’s about as deep as it goes). Sure, this helps with the suspense element, because the husbands tend to die in these things and so you’re thinking it’s not a matter of if but when, but… you know, he doesn’t die. None of them do. I get not wanting to make it as bleak, but perhaps Watkins went a little too far in the other direction. It’s a good thing that McAvoy is so scary in the role just with his mannerisms and expressions, because the script curiously keeps him from doing all that much to our heroes, so a lesser actor/performance would have left the movie without any real threat at all for the most part.
Then again the script DOES let him angrily sing The Bangles’ “Eternal Flame” and it might be one of the best things I’ve seen in a theater all year, so forget what I said about its shortcomings. It is evened out!
For real though, this has been the only Blumhouse movie all year that I enjoyed without any real reservations. Sure, it could have retained at least SOME of the original’s darkness, but I can’t completely dismiss a movie that kept me fully engaged and gripping my armrest, anchored by an all timer performance by one of our more interesting modern actors. So without going so far as to say it’s an essential view, it’s another solid entry on Watkins’ filmography, and another chilling reminder of why we shouldn’t make friends with whoever we meet on vacation.
What say you?
P.S. You don't need the trailer again. Watch the Bangles video.
PLEASE, GO ON...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)